The Structure of Creativity in Primary Education: An Empirical Confirmation of the Amusement Park Theory

In this study, we explored the structure of pupils’ creativity in primary education following the Amusement Park Theory, by investigating undiscovered linkages between the domains of writing, mathematics, and drawing. More specifically, we examined: (a) whether some domains and general thematic areas are more closely related to each other than to others, (b) whether literacy and mathematical ability are specific underlying traits of creativity in writing and mathematics, respectively, and (c) whether intelligence and divergent thinking are related to creativity in all domains. The sample consisted of 331 Dutch 4th grade pupils. For each research question, a model was analyzed using structural equation modeling. We found creativity in mathematics and creativity in writing to be most similar, followed by creativity in mathematics and creativity in drawing, with creativity in writing and creativity in drawing being least similar. Additionally, we found evidence for several underlying traits (i.e., literacy ability and mathematical ability) and initial requirements of creativity (i.e., intelligence and divergent thinking), none of which were important for creativity in only one domain, and of which only intelligence was important for creativity in all domains. Herewith, our study provides insights regarding the complexity of the structure of creativity in primary education.     

A Kantian Take on the Supererogatory

This article presents a Kantian alternative to the mainstream approach in ethics concerning the phenomena that are widely thought to require a category of the supererogatory. My view is that the phenomena do not require this category of (Kantian style) imperfect duties. Elsewhere I have written on Kant on this topic; here I shift my focus away from interpretive issues and consider the pros and cons of the Kantian approach. What background assumptions would lean one to favour the Kantian approach and what sorts would lean one to favour the mainstream approach? I also consider the possibility that in institutional contexts, there is a need for the category of the supererogatory. Here, it seems, we do need to know what we really have to do and what is beyond the call of duty; in this context, however, duty is not the Kantian moral notion, but rather is pegged to particular roles, or to the needs of the institution or group or club of which one is a member. But even here, I argue, the notion of the supererogatory is not crucial.     

Auditory Long term Memory: Repetition Priming of Voice Recognition

Two experiments examined repetition priming in the recognition of famous voices. In Experiment 1, reaction times for fame decisions to famous voice samples were shorter than in an unprimed condition, when voices were primed by a different voice sample of the same person having been presented in an earlier phase of the experiment. No effect of voice repetition was observed for non-famous voices. In Experiment 2, it was investigated whether this priming effect is voice-specific or whether it is related to post-perceptual processes in person recognition. Recognizing a famous voice was again primed by having earlier heard a different voice sample of that person. Although an earlier exposure to that person's name did not cause any priming, there was some indication of priming following an earlier exposure to that person's face. Finally, earlier exposure to the identical voice sample (as compared to a different voice sample from the same person) caused a considerable bias towards responding 'famous'-i.e. performance benefits for famous but costs for nonfamous voices. The findings suggestthat (1) repetition priming invoice recognition primarily involves the activation of perceptual representations of voices, and (2) it is important to determine the conditions in which priming causes bias effects that need to be disentangled from performance benefits.